Is the climate “crisis” worth 4 hours of your time? | "Climate Change Debate: Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin"

Two experts -- Bjørn Lomborg and Andrew Revkin”--  neither a “catastrophist”, but both having worked in the climate change area for decades, have a debate. A discussion. 

Moderated by the wonderful Lex Fridman.

4 hours, but fully time-stamped for topics of particular interest. 

A main take-away: Climate change is a reality but it’s not a “catastrophe” or “crisis" that the likes of Greta, Just Stop Oil, David Attenborough, claim. The IPCC from the UN says the same, if you can get around to reading it. Nowhere does it say that we have an “existential” crisis, as many have claimed. The most the report says is that if we don’t keep the temperature change to below 1.5C life may be “less comfortable”. 

Also: that there are lots of things that can be done to mitigate the changes that are easier than reducing CO₂, which is “very difficult” and long term only. Not that it shouldn’t be worked on, but that the main outcomes of CO₂ increase are already baked in, and no matter the extent of reductions in CO2, there’s going to be certain levels of temperature increase, so we must mitigate. 

And: while we work towards more renewables, we ought to keep natural gas in the mix. It’s less CO₂ intensive than coal or oil and is the main reason countries like the US have been able to reduce carbon emissions in recent decades. Let’s not perfection be the enemy of action. Gas is easy, cheap and effective in reducing carbon emissions. 

Nuclear: the alarmism over nuclear power from the sixties (from the Greens) was greater than the alarmism over climate change. And Greens remain reluctant. Because their “ageing donors” remain concerned (from the panic of the sixties; a panic never justified by the facts).